Why the monster Grendel has no place in activism today

I was at the anti-fracking protest at Balcombe in the UK when another activist said austerity is "a beast bigger than all of us". Then I started to see monsters everywhere.

The Beowulf complex - dehumanising our political opponents as "beasts" and "monsters" - has no place in modern day activism. Credit: Shutterstock.

Beowulf
and Grendel, David and Goliath, minnows and monsters – the struggle
between the powerless and the powerful is a longstanding metaphor for
social activism. It’s often used as motivation for the underdog,
but can also be very disempowering.

Combating the
‘Beowulf Complex’ – the use of words that reinforce the power
of the already powerful and disempower those who challenge them -
should be top priority for any social movement.

In
August 2013, I joined the ‘Reclaim the Power’ camp in Balcombe
in the United Kingdom. At the time, the
quiet village was the frontline of British resistance to fracking. A company called Cuadrilla planned to drill for shale gas there and
hundreds of activists arrived to demonstrate against fracking and the
UK’s fossil fuel dependency.

Near
the drilling site, the activist network No
Dash for Gas had set up a temporary community in
solidarity against corporations, government and their reliance on
gas. It was a friendly, peaceful space for campaigners of all ages to
meet, participate in training activities and protest together. The
campwas a lively hub of discussion, debate and
workshops; from legal ‘know your rights’ training to media
skills, activists gathered in tents to develop new skills to
facilitate change.

It
was during a workshop on the UK government cuts
that something strange hit me. One activist stated the need for
solidarity across different campaign groups, saying, "This beast
[austerity] is bigger than all of us".

The image of a beast was
powerful, but why was ‘austerity’ referred to as an abstract
entity, rather than as the decisions of a handful of people? Where
did the word ‘beast’ come from in the first place? Was ‘it’
really bigger than
us?

The picture of a beast overshadowing a community reminded
me of Beowulf,
an Anglo-Saxon poem written around the 10th
century. At its simplest, the plot is as follows: the people of
Heorot are living in fear, unable to defeat a murderous monster named
Grendel who has attacked members of the village. Then, a warrior
named Beowulf arrives and slays both the beast and its vengeful
mother. Consequently, peace is restored and Beowulf becomes King.

Beowulf's
plot adheres to a narrative structure dubbed 'Overcoming the Monster'
by Christopher Booker. It is found in David and Goliath, the James
Bond films and other tales: as a formula for a good story, it is
widely used.

So
what has Balcombe got to do with Beowulf?
Austerity is the result of manmade economic choices, yet the word
‘beast’ gives it an intimidating identity of its own.

This is
problematic for three reasons. Firstly, it positions the public and
activists in an unfavourable position in comparison. Secondly, it
cuts humans out of the picture entirely. Finally, given these factors
of disempowerment and inhuman threat; it risks leaving people
intimidated, unable to conceive of a solution and waiting for a
saviour, instead of taking active steps to facilitate social justice.

I
left Balcombe feeling energised, but, once I had noticed, I started
to hear about beasts everywhere. Not always literally, but in the
semiotic sense of what ‘beast’ represents: a strong,
uncontrollable and inhuman being capable of destruction.

Business
correspondents talked about supermarkets
and retailerslike
Amazon or Apple
as ‘giants’;
at a feminist discussion in London on economy, patriarchy and
prostitution, one woman described the combination of these factors as
"a complex machine"; GM corporation Monsantois frequently referred to as a ‘monster’;
oil company Shell has been called a ‘Goliath’;
US politicians used the political strategy of ‘Starving
the Beast’,
designed to limit government spending; in
his book ‘Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man’,
John Perkins describes the CIA as ‘Jackals’; influential
organisations such as the United Nations are commonly called
‘systems’.
Although ‘system’ does not create a storybook image like
‘monster’, it is similarly inhuman, faceless and unstoppable.
Such words form the ‘Beowulf Complex’ or ‘beast discourse’.

This
discourse shapes the way activists position themselves. A discourse
is a set of words that are repeatedly associated with certain
meanings; it informs the way events are perceived. For example, the
right wing press creates discourses when they frequently link words
together to evoke images in reader’s minds. ‘Immigration’ is
associated with ‘crime’ so often that the two terms become
synonymous after a while. In numerous Daily Mail articles onimmigration
the word ‘criminal’,
or ‘gang’is present. Within this context it's not long
until crime is the first thing Mail readers think of when they hear
‘immigration’.

Words
matter. Changing the words we use may not alter anything physically,
but it re-positions us psychologically. I know that ‘Beast’ and
similar words are a moral insult; they highlight the callousness of
high profile decision-makers. However, such words detach social
problems from their human origins.

Humans provoke these issues, but
we forget to identify them. Structural discrimination is not the
product of an autonomous machine, beast or giant. Humans
uphold it; mainly white middle-aged, middle-class males. Their
dominance is bolstered by fear-invoking words that present them as
too big and powerful for others to influence or challenge.

A
final point that the Beowulf Complex raises is: are people waiting
for a Beowulf to save the day? In social movements we don’t need to
look for a single leader or hero. Why wait to be led by others, or
watch others do the hard work? Everyone can lead; the collective is
heroic. The collective, really, is our best chance at fixing things.

Challenging
power is daunting enough, but when we dehumanise our adversaries, are
we subconsciously reliving the Beowulf narrative? Company names like
Cuadrilla
and Gazprom
make it seem feasible, especially as they are corporations set out to
profit from environmental devastation. No activist truly thinks they
are fighting mythological monsters: behind the brands, banks,
bureaucracy, corporations and computers are humans. We know this, but
the language that we use can reinforce existing power imbalances and
make change seem more difficult than it already is.

Occupy’s
99%
slogan is powerful because it places
things in perspective. It was, and is, empowering. So let’s match
the rest of our language to that sentiment. Humans, rather than
beasts, construct inequalities such as the gender
pay gap. Their
power is strengthened by their facelessness: behind the logos and
bureaucracy, the 1% are distanced from the day-to-day reality and
voices of the public, and the public are shielded from their human
identities.

Activists
are the amongst the most courageous people I know, and although
they’d probably be capable of slaying mythical beasts if it came to
it, I’ve seen numerous friends burn out when motivation slips and
disempowerment seeps in. Changing language is a small, personal
transformation that may boost the power of social movements; it may
convince more of the general public to actively organise for the
world they want to live in.

If activists want to change the narrative
and move on from a centuries-old story, we must shake off Grendel’s
grip.

About the author

Janey Stephenson is a campaigner and filmmaker who is interested in feminism, gender, social justice and human rights. She is passionate about ending violence against women and tweets @rebeljelly.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.